Reforming the NCAA is an option. Paying players is not an option. Increased stipends/ cost of attendance money could happen, but it has to be uniform across the board. What most people lose sight of is the fact that most athletic departments actually lose money.

I'm not surprised, but there has been no mention by many that advocate paying players of the many positive and valuable benefits to student athletes and society in general realized by the current system. Not everything good in life shows up on a balance sheet.

It would seem to me that the starting quarterback would deserve a bigger benefit than the top tennis player in the same way that the football coach has a larger salary than the tennis coach.

Also, the claim that athletic departments lose money is not one I completely buy into because many of the benefits (donations, increased enrollment) do not show up on the athletic department balance sheet. And if college athletics were such a drag on university finances, why would so many colleges still have them? How many colleges have dropped athletics because of the supposed deficits?

But regardless, more of the income generated by collegiate sports should go to student-athletes. It is ridiculous that football and basketball coaches make millions because their teams are judged to be of that much value to the university while the players who attract the fans and attention get much, much, much less.

The ratio of income distribution to coaches and administrators as opposed to players should reflect the income distribution at the professional level, which is determined by market forces, not by an imposed system designed to limit the ability of student-athletes to participate in the income they generate.

I don't know that the answer is that simple. A plan structured around payments to players tied to revenue thresholds of the underlying sports, whether done at the institution, conference or entire NCAA division level, could probably pass legal muster. A completely open system where individual players would be able to contract for their services would almost certainly be legal. Title IX speaks of equal opportunity, which can be defined more strictly in a paternalistic system but would be difficult to enforce against a system that was more truly capitalistic. The NCAA and its schools don't want to open the door wide open; they just want it open a crack. And that is where regulations like Title IX have their greatest power.